FAA orders wiring check for Boeing 787’s emergency locators

Battery in transmitter suspected in Ethiopian Dreamliner fire at Heathrow.

The Federal Aviation Administration has ordered airlines operating Boeing's 787 "Dreamliner" to conduct a safety check on the aircraft's emergency locator transmitter. The order comes after British aviation authorities narrowed the source of the recent fire aboard an Ethiopian Airlines 787 at Heathrow to the transmitter and urged the FAA to tell airlines to disconnect the batteries from the beacons on all aircraft.

The emergency locator transmitter, which broadcasts an automated signal in the event of a crash, is located near the tail of the plane, in an area where there are no fire suppression systems. If an electrical fire were sparked by the transmitter in flight, British officials said that "it could pose a significant safety concern and raise challenges for the cabin crew.”

Reuters reports that Japanese aviation officials have issued a temporary safety order approving the removal of 787 emergency transmitter batteries, allowing aircraft to fly without the beacon enabled.The FAA's order doesn't go as far as that, ordering only that a safety check be performed on the wiring of the transmitter.

The order is not nearly as severe as the one that grounded the 787 after the January battery fire aboard a JAL 787 at Boston's Logan Airport, but the apparent wiring problem is more bad news for Boeing's Dreamliner, a plane whose manufacturing process has been largely outsourced to subcontractors.

According to BBC Radio 4, Boeing were pushing for all similar locator beacons on all aircraft in the world to be examined. I guess it looks better if it's not just your plane that has the fault. This indicates it's not a problem with the beacons themselves, but rather the wiring, which isn't the first wiring problem this plane has faced either.

Still though, it's very good news for Boeing and hopefully this will be an end to the teething troubles with this aircraft.

Any news on whether this aircraft is a right-off? I read on Aviation Herald that the damage to the fuselage was too severe for a cost effective repair and the accident would be the first hull loss of a Dreamliner - unless they repair it anyway for PR reasons.

"a plane whose manufacturing process has been largely outsourced to subcontractors"- So, does anyone else remember a decade ago when everyone was talking about the benefits of collaboration and how Boeing's wiki-like organization was going to be the way of the future? You know, make airplane design distributed and open, sort of like linux? Scientific American and others were on board. All the outsourcing was going to give Boeing a huge boost and avoid the problems Airbus had with the A380. Airbus would go the way of the dinosaur.

I guess it didn't pan out. Fast-forward a few years and total integration is all the rage. Space X has had some success by consolidating more things in one place, Apple and Googlerola are getting more deeply involved in manufacturing their own devices, etc.

the apparent wiring problem is more bad news for Boeing's Dreamliner, a plane whose manufacturing process has been largely outsourced to subcontractors.

Nice bit of FUD there at the end. Why am I calling it FUD? Because you didn't even try to provide evidence that the work of the subcontractors is to blame for the 787's woes. Yet you just casually throw it out there, in what reads like a blatant attempt at leading readers into reaching a baseless conclusion without actually stating that conclusion yourself.

the apparent wiring problem is more bad news for Boeing's Dreamliner, a plane whose manufacturing process has been largely outsourced to subcontractors.

Nice bit of FUD there at the end. Why am I calling it FUD? Because you didn't even try to provide evidence that the work of the subcontractors is to blame for the 787's woes. Yet you just casually throw it out there, in what reads like a blatant attempt at leading readers into reaching a baseless conclusion without actually stating that conclusion yourself.

I guess I should have said, nice bit of FUD and CYA.

While these specific issues might not involve contractors, the fastener issue that held up development for years certainly did, as did the burning battery issue. Would those have happened anyways had development been done entirely in-house? Possibly. Nevertheless, when most previous quality control problems involved contractors, it is worth pointing out. Or do you feel that Ars should cover each 787 problem without giving any context such as previous problems?

the apparent wiring problem is more bad news for Boeing's Dreamliner, a plane whose manufacturing process has been largely outsourced to subcontractors.

Nice bit of FUD there at the end. Why am I calling it FUD? Because you didn't even try to provide evidence that the work of the subcontractors is to blame for the 787's woes. Yet you just casually throw it out there, in what reads like a blatant attempt at leading readers into reaching a baseless conclusion without actually stating that conclusion yourself.

I guess I should have said, nice bit of FUD and CYA.

Yeah, because as we know outsourcing critical jobs to the lowest bidder never causes any problems.

Nice bit of FUD there at the end. Why am I calling it FUD? Because you didn't even try to provide evidence that the work of the subcontractors is to blame for the 787's woes.

The author never claimed that the woes were caused by outsourcing, that's merely your own imagination running rampant. Mentioning that subcontractors are involved is called "stating a fact", and that's all.

Quote:

Yet you just casually throw it out there, in what reads like a blatant attempt at leading readers into reaching a baseless conclusion without actually stating that conclusion yourself.

The only one jumping to baseless conclusions here seems to be you. What's with this obsessive-compulsive need of yours to run to Boeing's defense like an outraged knight in shining armor anyway? I think they can take care of themselves quite well without your "help"...

The author never claimed that the woes were caused by outsourcing, that's merely your own imagination running rampant. Mentioning that subcontractors are involved is called "stating a fact", and that's all.

"Stating a fact" in the context of an article like this implies it's related. Especially putting it as the final note.

Ten years ago, Boeing had a unit of 1,200 engineers in Everett designing electronic controls for all its airplanes, and a plant in Texas where another 1,200 people built the hardware.

The company created the unit in the early 1980s because all the systems on a modern jet — including the electrical, hydraulics, engine, fuel, cabin air and flight-control systems — are managed by electronics.

Yet as Boeing launched the 787 Dreamliner program in 2003, management dispersed all those Everett engineers, outsourced their work, then sold off the Texas plant.

Part of a broad handoff of control to airplane-systems suppliers, the move was intended to cut Boeing’s costs.

Nice bit of FUD there at the end. Why am I calling it FUD? Because you didn't even try to provide evidence that the work of the subcontractors is to blame for the 787's woes.

The author never claimed that the woes were caused by outsourcing, that's merely your own imagination running rampant. Mentioning that subcontractors are involved is called "stating a fact", and that's all.

"Today an Ars Technica writer wrote a story arguing against current patent laws. Also, he once wrote an essay in support of Hitler."

Nice bit of FUD there at the end. Why am I calling it FUD? Because you didn't even try to provide evidence that the work of the subcontractors is to blame for the 787's woes.

The author never claimed that the woes were caused by outsourcing, that's merely your own imagination running rampant. Mentioning that subcontractors are involved is called "stating a fact", and that's all.

"Today an Ars Technica writer wrote a story arguing against current patent laws. Also, he once wrote an essay in support of Hitler."

The ELT is powered by a set of Lithium Manganese Dioxide Batteries, which showed disruptions of cells. It is unclear however whether the combustion started as result of energy release within the battery cells or by an outside event like a short circuit. Some 6000 units of this transmitter have been produced, ET-AOP is the only such incident so far. The AAIB recommended to the FAA to "inert" (deactivate) the ELTs in Boeing 787s until appropriate airworthiness actions can be taken and to conduct a safety review of all Lithium battery powered ELTs on all aircraft types.

6000 of this ELT type have been produced... there's definitely not 6000 787's out there!

the apparent wiring problem is more bad news for Boeing's Dreamliner, a plane whose manufacturing process has been largely outsourced to subcontractors.

Nice bit of FUD there at the end. Why am I calling it FUD? Because you didn't even try to provide evidence that the work of the subcontractors is to blame for the 787's woes. Yet you just casually throw it out there, in what reads like a blatant attempt at leading readers into reaching a baseless conclusion without actually stating that conclusion yourself.

I guess I should have said, nice bit of FUD and CYA.

While these specific issues might not involve contractors, the fastener issue that held up development for years certainly did, as did the burning battery issue. Would those have happened anyways had development been done entirely in-house? Possibly. Nevertheless, when most previous quality control problems involved contractors, it is worth pointing out. Or do you feel that Ars should cover each 787 problem without giving any context such as previous problems?

I don't have any problem with providing context. What struck me about that sentence was how it was literally the last part of the last sentence. That should be your concluding argument, not the introduction of a new point. If that point was to be raised, it should have been in a paragraph in the body of the article. Why not finish the article like this:

Quote:

The order is not nearly as severe as the one that grounded the 787 after the January battery fire aboard a JAL 787 at Boston's Logan Airport, but the apparent wiring problem is more bad news for Boeing's Dreamliner

It brings up past problems, including the previous grounding, and summarizes that 787 problems continue. No need to bring up a new point as a concluding comment.

God shut up about the contractor quote already. It's par t of context given troubles past. That's all

Shees dragging hitler into this. Watch your hyperbole, we are a better forum than that

Also, score one for the Streisand Effect. I personally had forgotten about the whole subcontractor issue, and had kind of glossed over the last sentence of the article. But now that the entire comment section is devoted to it, it's fresh in my mind.

Just a FYI, they ship these ELTS with the batteries installed. Lots of ELT searches end up at FedEx trucks. ;-)

The batteries were made by a Japanese firm so when the Japanese firm ship the batteries to Boeing the firm ship the batteries with UPS and not FedEx, because UPS have their own international cargo planes, FedEx don't.

Just a FYI, they ship these ELTS with the batteries installed. Lots of ELT searches end up at FedEx trucks. ;-)

The batteries were made by a Japanese firm so when the Japanese firm ship the batteries to Boeing the firm ship the batteries with UPS and not FedEx, because UPS have their own international cargo planes, FedEx don't.

Just a FYI, they ship these ELTS with the batteries installed. Lots of ELT searches end up at FedEx trucks. ;-)

The batteries were made by a Japanese firm so when the Japanese firm ship the batteries to Boeing the firm ship the batteries with UPS and not FedEx, because UPS have their own international cargo planes, FedEx don't.

FedEx will be surprised to hear they don't have cargo planes.

But you get the ELT from the factory with the batteries installed. That is why so many go off in shipping. The new 406 models at least indicate their location. No RDF required.

I'm updating this post because I thought the 121.5 MHZ ELTs were history. More here:

Just a FYI, they ship these ELTS with the batteries installed. Lots of ELT searches end up at FedEx trucks. ;-)

The batteries were made by a Japanese firm so when the Japanese firm ship the batteries to Boeing the firm ship the batteries with UPS and not FedEx, because UPS have their own international cargo planes, FedEx don't.

Just to add, the people who call what Boeing is doing "outsourcing" don't really understand what Boeing is doing, or why they're doing it. What they're really doing is distributing risk, because modern airliner programs are far too expensive for one company to take on alone, and negotiating foreign flag carrier buy-in by contracting to their local manufacturers.

the apparent wiring problem is more bad news for Boeing's Dreamliner, a plane whose manufacturing process has been largely outsourced to subcontractors.

Nice bit of FUD there at the end. Why am I calling it FUD? Because you didn't even try to provide evidence that the work of the subcontractors is to blame for the 787's woes. Yet you just casually throw it out there, in what reads like a blatant attempt at leading readers into reaching a baseless conclusion without actually stating that conclusion yourself.

I guess I should have said, nice bit of FUD and CYA.

While these specific issues might not involve contractors, the fastener issue that held up development for years certainly did, as did the burning battery issue. Would those have happened anyways had development been done entirely in-house? Possibly. Nevertheless, when most previous quality control problems involved contractors, it is worth pointing out. Or do you feel that Ars should cover each 787 problem without giving any context such as previous problems?

Don't forget the wrinkles in the carbon fiber of the body sections made by Alenia.

Ten years ago, Boeing had a unit of 1,200 engineers in Everett designing electronic controls for all its airplanes, and a plant in Texas where another 1,200 people built the hardware.

The company created the unit in the early 1980s because all the systems on a modern jet — including the electrical, hydraulics, engine, fuel, cabin air and flight-control systems — are managed by electronics.

Yet as Boeing launched the 787 Dreamliner program in 2003, management dispersed all those Everett engineers, outsourced their work, then sold off the Texas plant.

Part of a broad handoff of control to airplane-systems suppliers, the move was intended to cut Boeing’s costs.

As Badmonkey pointed out, these moves were to cut costs, but not by losing control of the process and cutting employees. Relocating a plant to a non-union state? That was pure management cost cutting crap. The 787 was fundamentally different. The cost for making a new state of the art plane is enormous, with long lead times and lots of specialized manufacturing equipment. The risk of building a new plane and then floundering would destroy any company, and the financing would have been more expensive due to the risk. Instead of building a prototype themselves and then getting contractors, they gave component specifications to contractors who agreed terms sharing the risk and upfront research and manufacturing costs, and also take big hits for failure to meet deadlines. The biggest downside is that Boeing loses those skills in house, but they likely had little choice.People have pointed out Apple/Google and space craft companies as the opposite, but really you can't compare them. Apple/Google are making many complicated but inexpensive devices, and are also looking at long term shipping of components and costs shifting in China. Space craft are just as complicated as a 787, but Boeing has to make hundreds of them, so localizing production isn't going to happen.

So we have this giant piece of carbon infused plastic (semiconductor infused dielectric) flying through the sky at 500 miles per hour knocking electrons off of oxygen molecules. Sort of like taking a fur cloth and rubbing it back and forth on a plastic rod and then watching the plastic rod spark off to some grounded piece of metal...only on a much bigger scale. Behind that plastic body are all these wires running all over the place. Plastic plane body charges up. Reaches critical voltage. Discharges current to wires underneath. (Sort of like a super sized capacitor suddenly discharging). Surge of current blows up whatever it sees first....lithium battery?....light beacon?.

I can just see it. The pilot turns on the fasten seat belt sign. Passenger hears the ding, looks up at the fasten seat belt light and watches it explode in his face.

So we have this giant piece of carbon infused plastic (semiconductor infused dielectric) flying through the sky at 500 miles per hour knocking electrons off of oxygen molecules. Sort of like taking a fur cloth and rubbing it back and forth on a plastic rod and then watching the plastic rod spark off to some grounded piece of metal...only on a much bigger scale. Behind that plastic body are all these wires running all over the place. Plastic plane body charges up. Reaches critical voltage. Discharges current to wires underneath. (Sort of like a super sized capacitor suddenly discharging). Surge of current blows up whatever it sees first....lithium battery?....light beacon?.

I can just see it. The pilot turns on the fasten seat belt sign. Passenger hears the ding, looks up at the fasten seat belt light and watches it explode in his face.

Umm, no. Airliners (especially composite skinned ones which can't rely on metal skins to the do the job) have extensive grounding systems specifically to deal with stray electrical discharges, not the least of which, lightning.

While these specific issues might not involve contractors, the fastener issue that held up development for years certainly did, as did the burning battery issue. Would those have happened anyways had development been done entirely in-house? Possibly. [...]

From everything I have read and understood about the "burning battery issue" I would think that a large part of the problem seems to be the apparent "self-certification" which is performed by Boeing, i.e. Boeing employees effectively doing the FAA's job of safety certifying plane components. So I guess there is another problem caused by out-sourcing, in this case the FAA outsourcing part of their responsibilities directly to the companies which they are supposed to control and certify...

I know people that work in one place where the wiring looms for the 787 are made, and the stories about QA problems are mind blowing (to somebody who is also in the air parts industry where QA is everything).

In one instance they were shipping wires where the outside jacket of the wire had been spooled on backwards by a machine operator and thus not cured properly in the ovens. These wires passed QA both at the supplier before shipping and at Boeing's receiving QA. The issue was caught by the installer that could feel the jacket wasn't on 'right' and alerted his bosses.

"a plane whose manufacturing process has been largely outsourced to subcontractors"- So, does anyone else remember a decade ago when everyone was talking about the benefits of collaboration and how Boeing's wiki-like organization was going to be the way of the future? You know, make airplane design distributed and open, sort of like linux? Scientific American and others were on board. All the outsourcing was going to give Boeing a huge boost and avoid the problems Airbus had with the A380. Airbus would go the way of the dinosaur.

I guess it didn't pan out. Fast-forward a few years and total integration is all the rage. Space X has had some success by consolidating more things in one place, Apple and Googlerola are getting more deeply involved in manufacturing their own devices, etc.

Boeing's outsourcing was its attempt to break up the unions... and outsource its R&D costs of a new ground up design. Quite frankly, they are lucky it hasn't been worse than it has, given so many years of delays before launch and problems after.

Nice bit of FUD there at the end. Why am I calling it FUD? Because you didn't even try to provide evidence that the work of the subcontractors is to blame for the 787's woes.

The author never claimed that the woes were caused by outsourcing, that's merely your own imagination running rampant. Mentioning that subcontractors are involved is called "stating a fact", and that's all.

Quote:

Yet you just casually throw it out there, in what reads like a blatant attempt at leading readers into reaching a baseless conclusion without actually stating that conclusion yourself.

The only one jumping to baseless conclusions here seems to be you. What's with this obsessive-compulsive need of yours to run to Boeing's defense like an outraged knight in shining armor anyway? I think they can take care of themselves quite well without your "help"...

Did you miss the post right above where a poster was reaching the conclusion the poster feared people would.

Stating facts is helpful if they contribute to the story... but stating facts that lead to conjecture based on people's biases is not helpful.

Sean Gallagher / Sean is Ars Technica's IT Editor. A former Navy officer, systems administrator, and network systems integrator with 20 years of IT journalism experience, he lives and works in Baltimore, Maryland.